I had to check the date on that article, didn't they do the exact same story a few months ago? It was roundly heckled for not being in context and being deliberately misleading, so they figured they'd try again? Wait, I googled and found it. Here it is.

Slaxl:sno man: I'd expect weather experts to understand the difference between weather and climate. Oh well.Also the "Met Office" should really compare notes with NOAA. just three hours ago (on the main)

I'd be more inclined to blame the Daily Mail for being misleading and twisting the Met Office's words, rather than the Met Office itself. It's all they do.

Bingo. The data does not say it has stalled at all. But sk(c)eptics are going to cling to this as proof that the roads flooding on the coast more often at high tides is just simply not actually happening and are a figment of everyone who lives there imagination.

gulogulo:Slaxl: sno man: I'd expect weather experts to understand the difference between weather and climate. Oh well.Also the "Met Office" should really compare notes with NOAA. just three hours ago (on the main)

I'd be more inclined to blame the Daily Mail for being misleading and twisting the Met Office's words, rather than the Met Office itself. It's all they do.

Bingo. The data does not say it has stalled at all. But sk(c)eptics are going to cling to this as proof that the roads flooding on the coast more often at high tides is just simply not actually happening and are a figment of everyone who lives there imagination.

Be fair. They are not saying that the present is not the present or that high tides haven't happened.

They are just saying that the slope of the line isn't as steep as they had thought and that you may have to wait a while to fry your eggs on the sidewalk.

I'd be more inclined to blame the Daily Mail for being misleading and twisting the Met Office's words, rather than the Met Office itself. It's all they do.

Bingo. The data does not say it has stalled at all. But sk(c)eptics are going to cling to this as proof that the roads flooding on the coast more often at high tides is just simply not actually happening and are a figment of everyone who lives there imagination.

Be fair. They are not saying that the present is not the present or that high tides haven't happened.

They are just saying that the slope of the line isn't as steep as they had thought and that you may have to wait a while to fry your eggs on the sidewalk.

The problem is the levelling off of the slope is over too small a part of the graph to mean anything. The Deniers are going to run with this misleading info to wave the 'nothing going on carry on' banner. And they will have a few listen.It sound like the developed this new model and punched in the last twentish years (the shallow slope) and guess what, it projected the slope to basically continue in a basically straight line. 1998 was an outlier, on the high end, starting from that point is going to flatten the slope significantly. The only reason to start from 1998 is to flatten the slope. The question is why would they want to do that.

Slaxl:I had to check the date on that article, didn't they do the exact same story a few months ago? It was roundly heckled for not being in context and being deliberately misleading, so they figured they'd try again? Wait, I googled and found it. Here it is.

The Daily Fail is roughly as legitimate as Fox News. You can tell that this is recycled from the previous hit-piece they were chastised for, because while they focus on the Met Office, the people quoted are:

As someone who acknowledges the existence of global warming, let me say that any mitigation of the phenomenon is a good thing. I don't want the world to become less inhabitable just so my side can be proven right. That shiat is childish.

sno man:I'd expect weather experts to understand the difference between weather and climate. Oh well.Also the "Met Office" should really compare notes with NOAA. just three hours ago (on the main)

Two decades worth of temperature data is more than weather. And the NOAA article was about the continental USA, or about 2% of the globe - so even less relevant to global climate change.

Does the 16 years of flat temperatures mean global warming is not happening. Almost certainly not, it probably means natural variation is larger than the increase during this time period. But is it also equally derpy to use the NOAA article to say it is worse than we thought and increasing rapidly? Yes, yes it is.

Sixteen years of no warming does not negate global climate change. But it does make it completely dishonest to say the rate of warming is increasing. Because the actual data says otherwise.

Hey. This can't be a global warming thread. There's no death threats, no graphs, no pretend experts who have more knowledge than the rest of the world combined on EXACTLY why the world is cooling/warming/staying the exact same.I feel cheated.

Mikey1969:Kuroshin: Two climate threads in one day? Damn, I had hoped, what with all the shootings and Benghazis that we were finally past this. There's only so much derp a person can take all at once!

Not only that, but two contradictory climate threads. It could have only been better if they had been side by side...

"Hottest year on record", but "the rise in temperature may have stalled".

Both can be true. Hottest refers to USA, stalled refers to global. Both sides in this argument use whichever set of data or time scales that best suits the point they want to make.

justGreg:Sixteen years of no warming does not negate global climate change. But it does make it completely dishonest to say the rate of warming is increasing. Because the actual data says otherwise.

Except when 16 years was specifically chosen to anchor the beginning of the time-series to an anomalously warm El Nino year. A year ago they were talking about a 15 year time-series, and a year before that it was a 14 year time-series. Talk about dishonesty...

LouDobbsAwaaaay:A year ago they were talking about a 15 year time-series, and a year before that it was a 14 year time-series. Talk about dishonesty...

If an asteroid hit the earth tomorrow, in a year how long would it have been since an asteroid hit the earth? How about a year after that? How about a year after that? Would it be dishonest to talk about how long it's been since an asteroid hit the earth?

Here's the funny/sad/unfunny/predictable part. There will come a year, maybe 2030, maybe 2050, maybe 2120...I don't know. But a year will come. There will be several massive superstorms. Enormous forest fires that burn unchecked. Large numbers of tornadoes unprecedented in their violence. And massive droughts. No one event will be that huge of an unprecedented calamity, but combined, they will essentially break the system. Crops will fail, a lot of people will die, and the majority of the world's people will worry that they're about to die. It will finally be clear that, no, this is not just "ordinary weather," and no, this is not Al Gore and the UN trying to take over Real Murica. This is climate change, and it's very bad.

Can anybody guess what position a sensationalistic junk tabloid like the Daily Mail will take then?

Dokushin:LouDobbsAwaaaay: A year ago they were talking about a 15 year time-series, and a year before that it was a 14 year time-series. Talk about dishonesty...

If an asteroid hit the earth tomorrow, in a year how long would it have been since an asteroid hit the earth? How about a year after that? How about a year after that? Would it be dishonest to talk about how long it's been since an asteroid hit the earth?

If the intention were to argue that asteroid strikes are declining or have stopped then yes, it would be dishonest. Actually, dishonesty isn't necessarily always the reason. It would be simpler and more generally applicable just to call the argument 'wrong', regardless of whether or not it stems from dishonesty.

Kibbler:Here's the funny/sad/unfunny/predictable part. There will come a year, maybe 2030, maybe 2050, maybe 2120...I don't know. But a year will come. There will be several massive superstorms. Enormous forest fires that burn unchecked. Large numbers of tornadoes unprecedented in their violence. And massive droughts. No one event will be that huge of an unprecedented calamity, but combined, they will essentially break the system. Crops will fail, a lot of people will die, and the majority of the world's people will worry that they're about to die. It will finally be clear that, no, this is not just "ordinary weather," and no, this is not Al Gore and the UN trying to take over Real Murica. This is climate change, and it's very bad.

Can anybody guess what position a sensationalistic junk tabloid like the Daily Mail will take then?

You've really got a hard on for that Socialism. Maybe we can all just start a big ol' Federation of Planets right now in the 21st century and forego all those nasty global wars and live like Capt Picard says we will in the future "The acquisition of wealth is no longer the driving force of our lives. We work to better ourselves and the rest of humanity"

Dokushin:LouDobbsAwaaaay: A year ago they were talking about a 15 year time-series, and a year before that it was a 14 year time-series. Talk about dishonesty...

If an asteroid hit the earth tomorrow, in a year how long would it have been since an asteroid hit the earth? How about a year after that? How about a year after that? Would it be dishonest to talk about how long it's been since an asteroid hit the earth?

Let's say I spend $2000/month on average for 10 years. Then, I buy a car and spend $20k that month. After that month, I spend $3000 a month on average for the next year, $4000 a month the year after that, and $5000 a month the year after that.

Would you think I was honestly analyzing my spending if I decided to start my analysis at the month I bought that car and declared that my spending has been in steady decline?

Sixteen years of no warming does not negate global climate change. But it does make it completely dishonest to say the rate of warming is increasing. Because the actual data says otherwise.

While the increase in air temperature has slowed, the rate at which the ice caps are melting has increased beyond what any model has predicted. The open water is responsible for much of the change in winter weather across the US (either by putting more moisture in the air or creating temperature gradients that move the jet stream). So while it is dishonest to say that the rate that the air temperature rises is increasing, it is not dishonest to say that the rate that the planet itself is warming is increasing.

You must be implying the "Fark Librul" definition where it means. "Just being cool and righteous with each other". The worst case scenarios are no more probable than no warming at all. Don't burn that gallon of gas and someone in one of the BRICS will get his next gallon cheaper. Go get that electric car and it will run on coal to charge toxic rare earths from China.

Dokushin:LouDobbsAwaaaay: A year ago they were talking about a 15 year time-series, and a year before that it was a 14 year time-series. Talk about dishonesty...

If an asteroid hit the earth tomorrow, in a year how long would it have been since an asteroid hit the earth? How about a year after that? How about a year after that? Would it be dishonest to talk about how long it's been since an asteroid hit the earth?

Your rant represents a complete lack of understanding of the subject at hand.

Slaxl:I had to check the date on that article, didn't they do the exact same story a few months ago? It was roundly heckled for not being in context and being deliberately misleading, so they figured they'd try again? Wait, I googled and found it. Here it is.

eyupso tired of these peopleTHE SCIENCE IS CLEAR. THERE IS NO DOUBT. WE ARE ALL IN AGREEMENT. WE ARE ALL GOING TO BURN.whoops, maybe not anytime soon, whoops, the line is FLAT since 1998? that cant be good. our predictions are for fire and brimstone.

sno man:I'd expect weather experts to understand the difference between weather and climate. Oh well.Also the "Met Office" should really compare notes with NOAA. just three hours ago (on the main)

Doesn't matter. Subby's an idiot, and it's too friggin' late. We're past the point where we can have a significant global impact on the trend - scientists have been increasingly saying that we now need to start mitigating the effects.

But, hey, it's the Daily Fail, and we haven't had a good argument about climate change in a while, so, sure, once more around the block, Murdoch.

Uncontrolled_Jibe:Slaxl: Uncontrolled_Jibe: You've really got a hard on for that Socialism

Do you even know what socialism is?

Link

Link

Link

You must be implying the "Fark Librul" definition where it means. "Just being cool and righteous with each other". The worst case scenarios are no more probable than no warming at all. Don't burn that gallon of gas and someone in one of the BRICS will get his next gallon cheaper. Go get that electric car and it will run on coal to charge toxic rare earths from China.

I'm gonna go with "no" was your intended answer to my question, since you had to Google it and look up what it meant rather than just answer from the top of your head like anyone else would have done. My real point, however, was that you don't seem to know what socialism is since you called someone socialist simply because they believe the Earth is warming.

Slaxl:Uncontrolled_Jibe: Slaxl: Uncontrolled_Jibe: You've really got a hard on for that Socialism

Do you even know what socialism is?

Link

Link

Link

You must be implying the "Fark Librul" definition where it means. "Just being cool and righteous with each other". The worst case scenarios are no more probable than no warming at all. Don't burn that gallon of gas and someone in one of the BRICS will get his next gallon cheaper. Go get that electric car and it will run on coal to charge toxic rare earths from China.

I'm gonna go with "no" was your intended answer to my question, since you had to Google it and look up what it meant rather than just answer from the top of your head like anyone else would have done. My real point, however, was that you don't seem to know what socialism is since you called someone socialist simply because they believe the Earth is warming.

No, I'm quite aware of what it is. What I'm also aware of is that most of the so called solutions posed resemble command economies and other impractical concepts such as the whole world moving away to some just around the corner technology that the next dollar will surely give us. Tom Friedman proposes huge taxes on petroleum, but if your reduce American consumption then the BRIC's will burn the difference. I've had too many discussions with real Socialist who do see this as a reason to switch to a comman economy. They're as stupid as the extreme Right Wing nutjobs who refuse to believe there is a rise. We'll get warmer and the see will rise..less than a foot in 100 years. Not 20 feet or even 10 feet. So maybe you;re one of those who run around waving little "s" socialism in the face of Moderates and Conservatives, but don't tell me the big "S" Socialists aren't yammering away. I use the Picard quote because I've seen it argued fro people who believe it. I use the links because I see people who don;t know that that Socialism and Communism are historically linked as economic systems, and they are not just trying to even things up a bit.